Question for Ara, Gintara and other dog lovers - Greyhounds - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Question for Ara, Gintara and other dog lovers - Greyhounds - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Question for Ara, Gintara and other dog lovers  (Read 5850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline worldisavampire

  • Group 2
  • User 545
  • Posts: 3986
O.P. « 2014-Nov-10, 12:08 PM »
I keep having this memory that one of you posted a story about the profitability of each box.

I remember that Box 2 was the only profitable one. Can you guys remember this study?

I got in an argument with a semi pro punter over the weekend and he didn't believe me. I told him that Box 1 obviously has the most wins but is over bet.

Any memories or links would be greatly appreciated.
« Last Edit: 2014-Nov-10, 12:57 PM by worldisavampire »

Offline jordmike

  • Open
  • User 213
  • Posts: 135
« 2014-Nov-10, 02:31 PM Reply #1 »
I had this link in my fav lists when I used to punt on the dish lickers   emthup

http://www.punterstats.com/

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12388
« 2014-Nov-10, 04:47 PM Reply #2 »
Not sure about profitability but the Dogs website has every track in NSW for all the stats you could want  :thumbsup:

http://www.thedogs.com.au/Racing/StatisticsTrack.aspx


Offline jordmike

  • Open
  • User 213
  • Posts: 135
« 2014-Nov-10, 05:40 PM Reply #3 »
That is a fantastic website for dish licker punters Gintara   :thumbsup:

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7360
« 2014-Nov-10, 07:44 PM Reply #4 »
It's was quite a few years ago, but I recorded wins and TAB returns  over a couple of years for Albion Park dogs and Box 1 definitely had the best win percentage and the lowest return per dollar invested. Below 70 cents per $1 from memory. My recollection is that box 8 over a certain price band was profitable but not if you backed them all. I've got the stats in one of my old journals somewhere but I'm not going looking.


Offline manikato1

  • Group 2
  • User 195
  • Posts: 4144
« 2014-Nov-10, 08:11 PM Reply #5 »
There were also certain tracks where box 1 is a bit of a shocker - I know Grafton in the old days had a reputation for box 1 being a poor box at the 400 starts, and have a memory that it was also not that great at Wenty at on stage.

Probably doesn't help.

Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2014-Nov-11, 01:46 PM Reply #6 »
vampire

The question is a reasonable one, and I'd think your position is the correct one, i.e. while a certain box might win more races the odds available over time are reduced to the extent that backing all starters from that box is not a winning strategy.

To draw any valid conclusions we need a sizeable dataset, otherwise we're wasting our time.

I have a lot of data from the 1980s.  You might not be interested in it, but it does address the key issues.

I'll post just one table for now - I have many others, with breakdowns by price brackets, and profitability, etc.

The data comes from the Gabba, where we had a pretty strong betting ring.  Not sure where you'd get that these days.

The Gabba was a crazy track, but the most-used start (558m) was reasonably fair, starting from the top of the straight.  I'd say the circuit was about 450m in circumference.

I got results for 900 consecutive races with full fields.  Love that dot matrix printer!!!



We always worked on the rule that the red box was the best.  The data confirms that and without doubt the finding is statistically significant.  The 8 was next best with 2, 3 and 7 a bit behind.

Not surprisingly, the bias shows us to a similar degree in the PLACE results.

A very informative statistic is the % Opposition Beaten.  I've written about this before, but no one that I know of uses it.  It really is the only meaningful measure of the advantage (or otherwise) of a box (or barrier).

Again, the red dogs beat hom almost 60% of their opposition.  This compares to an expected 50% - if all was fair.  We tend to shy away from the 4 and 5, but you can see that their respective stats are 49 and 46 - probably not statistically significant versus 50%.

Now, what about odds?  There's a column for the SP average.  Apart from the red box (at 6/1) the others are reasonably close between 10/1 and 13/1.  Average can be a misleading statistic - frrequently misused - so we should treat it with caution.

The two columns on the far right are interesting.

Note that while the red box wins 21% of the time, and we average 6/1 of all runners, we still lose $226 when we have $1 win on all runners.  (Note my comment above re average.)  This means that the longer-priced runners do not perform to their price (probability).  In fact, the best result for this approach comes from box 7.

The very far right column is the most meaningful.  This shows the result when we back every runner to RETURN $100.  That is, if the dog was 4/1, we would have $20 on it.  Note that again box 7 is the best outcome - it doesn't have to be that way just because the $1 WIN has the best outcome - while the red box is pretty close to 4, 5, and 8.

The value of the RETURN $100 stat is that it tells us whether the short-priced runners perform to expectations.  From this table, we can conclude that when a 7 dog is at short odds it will perform well.  On the other hand, from box 2 and 6, the favourites went poorly.

Hope this is of some interest.

Happy to discuss further if you wish.  :thumbsup:

Offline worldisavampire

  • Group 2
  • User 545
  • Posts: 3986
« 2014-Nov-12, 04:41 PM Reply #7 »
Wow. Thanks guys.

Great links Jordmike and Gintara. I could get lost in these for hours. And I've never considered betting on the chocolate frogs as anything more than a great joy.

DD, wonderful report. Were you betting consistently on the dogs during this period and put all this together? Or is this data that you received from someone? 

Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2014-Nov-13, 11:11 AM Reply #8 »
vampire

All my own data and analysis (in dBase III).  I have to say I can only hope to be as smart right now as I was then.  :sad:

Went to the Gabba every Thursday night.  Dinner at the Milano or Cathay, and then to the Gabba, and then....  :shutup:

You might be interested in this table:



It deals with odds - remember these are bookies' odds.

Couple of columns to the left side, immediately to the right of Strs...  These are the odds we needed to break even, taking into account the actual odds offered and the performance of the runners from each box.

Note the results for the red box at the 420m start.  It was a big advantage - and the bookies knew it.  Out of 105 races there wasn't one runner greater than 16/1 (see far right column).

Down the bottom you can see the performance vs odds of 6296 runners in 787 races.

We see that of 157 runners at odd-on, 36 of them were unplaced.

I suspect no one else in the world has data like this - but they mightn't want it, either.  :rolleyes:

Offline worldisavampire

  • Group 2
  • User 545
  • Posts: 3986
« 2014-Nov-18, 04:01 PM Reply #9 »
I've shown this to a few of my mates DD and they are in love with your data capturing skills.

Did you stop betting on dogs because the Gabba closed or did horse racing become more profitable for you?

Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2014-Nov-18, 09:48 PM Reply #10 »
vampire, thanks for your kind comments.   emthup

No doubt, the approach was quite novel at the time.  Would be interesting to see some modern-day stats, based on best-TAB divvies.

I continued to bet at the Gabba till the close, from memory.  But didn't take up membership at AP.  There seemed no point in continuing with the data analysis because the picture wasn't changing.  Further, I had a mate who did some intensive form study, and when we combined that with the stats, things were pretty healthy.

I should also add I was doing exactly the same stuff for Albion Park Harness Racing, plus I was paid by Computaform to analyse jockey statistics.  Plus, I decided to invest some of my ill-gotten gains in a new beach-house.  Since there was only one of me I had to give up something.   :lol:

You might be intested in the jockey stats:




I'll do a blow-up of the Sydney page, in case it's not legible.  Note some of the names!!


Offline chalky

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 319
  • Posts: 5227
« 2014-Nov-19, 08:29 PM Reply #11 »
Ringa ding ding


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap